Replies

Swell.

Well, from a detached political perspective she’s obviously skilled at retaining a district increasingly becoming more Democratic in a very bad year for Republicans. She proved that in 2006.

The state as a whole has trended slowly to Dems, just as her district has. Mainly due to fleeing liberals rushing in, and fraud.

The state isn’t quite as unwelcome to Republicans as her district, and she strikes me as a politician first.

I’m not sure if she is an idealogue. If she is, she only indulges those personal beliefs when it suits her political advantage. Her state campaign may be slightly more friendly to conservatives then her district one because of the makeup of the state. *Maybe*.

Her district will be endangered as a result of her running for Senate. Even if a Republican retains it, they will probably be even more liberal on votes then her own record.

That she is running means one or two things. Either she’s calculated she has no chance of surviving another close House race, or she thinks ‘08 will be a slightly friendlier year for Republicans in ‘08. If that is true, it probably bodes well for Republican recruitment. Many of their first choices turned them down in ‘06 expecting big losses at the ballot box. The Congresswoman in West Virginia they approached to challenge Byrd comes to mind.

Personally, I don’t consider her an addition for conservative ranks in the Senate. I’m not jumping for joy.

The establishment? Hard to say. I don’t think she’ll make them do Cartwheels like they are over their movement to draft General Pace or the way they are reacting to Johanns (another that doesn’t excite me), but they’ll probably be satisfied if she’s the nominee.